The fight over who should pay for climate change

BONN, Germany — Rich world countries have been pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution, and poorer countries now want them to pay for the damage that’s allegedly done. Who should pay and how much is one of the main friction points ahead of the Paris climate summit.

A week-long meeting in Bonn last week showed that even the definition of what is a developed country is up for grabs. Richer governments like those in the EU push for more “nuanced” guidelines on how to divide and share the burden and responsibility for action on climate change, while developing countries worry the rich are trying to evade their responsibilities.

“The narrative that we are being given is that the world has changed, and that it is time to expand the pool of so-called donors of climate aid and to narrow the list of eligible developing countries to receive support,” said Nozipho Mxakato-Diseko, the South African ambassador and leader of the G77 and China group, which represents more than 130 developing countries.

She argued wealthy countries are trying to dodge an obligation set out in the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.

But the EU counters say that it’s not so simple. China, for instance, pledged in September to provide $3.1 billion to help developing countries cut their emissions and adapt to climate change — its first such commitment.

“We consider it somewhat unfortunate to see that some countries are reverting to very rigid and somewhat outdated rhetoric which divides the world into developed and undeveloped countries according to income levels as they were in the 1990s,” Elina Bardram, the bloc’s chief negotiator, told reporters Friday. “The new agreement must reflect today’s reality and evolve as the world does.”

Negotiators from 196 governments were in Bonn trying to agree on a clear and concise draft deal laying out options for ministers to decide on during the second week of the COP21 in Paris, which begins November 30. The conference ended Friday with a new 55-page version of the text, scattered with more than 1,000 pairs of square brackets marking areas to be revisited.

Under the section on how to mitigate climate change, for instance, the new draft lays out four options for differentiating country efforts.

They range from saying nothing on the matter, to setting “absolute emissions targets” for the United Nations’ Annex 1 list of developed countries, while developing countries step up their mitigation work after 2020, compared to before. The problem is that the definition of “developed” only covers Europe, the U.S., Canada, Australia, Japan and a few others, but excludes economic powerhouses like South Korea, Singapore, Brazil and China, as well as some of the world’s wealthiest countries like Saudi Arabia.

The question of who should pay is unlikely to be decided before that second week of the COP21, Bardram said. “It’s something that cuts across all chapters and has to be decided by ministers.”

The difference between developed and developing worlds has started to soften over the past year, since the COP20 summit in Lima in 2014, said Tasneem Essop, head of strategy and advocacy at the WWF’s global climate and energy initiative.

Some developing countries, such as China, have a growing capacity to provide financial support, while others with large emissions could soon be able to start reducing their pollution without international help, she said.

“It does seem like they will land in a space where there will be a nuanced approach to differentiation,” she said of the Paris negotiations.

Who’s paying?

There’s also the issue of where the money should come from.

The EU and U.S. have argued for widening the pool of contributing countries and encouraging the private sector to pitch in by, for instance, investing in low-carbon technologies. The G77 and China group has criticized this effort.

To the EU, however, private sector contributions will be crucial to meeting the financial needs after 2020.

Developed countries have pledged to provide $100 billion per year by 2020, and according to a recent OECD study the sum stood at nearly $62 billion as of December. But the U.N. and others estimate that trillions of dollars will be needed over the coming decades to shift to a low-carbon global economy.

That means the donor base has to be broadened, said Sarah Blau, the delegate from Luxembourg, adding that EU member states do acknowledge the need to deliver climate finance in the future.

But other public and private donors have to contribute, she said. “There has to be a link between the Paris agreement and the real world that gives a signal that when they make investments they have to take climate change into consideration, not as a minor aspect but as a key aspect.”

Related stories on these topics:

ExLiberal

This scam always was about extracting money from us taxpayers…….
And giving it to corrupt 3rd World dictators.

Posted on 10/26/15 | 11:51 AM CET

Thucydides

Fascinating how people can get carried away in a virtual reality environment.

Posted on 10/26/15 | 6:41 PM CET

Dodgy Geezer

…poorer countries now want them to pay for the damage that’s allegedly done…

‘Allegedly’ is the key word here. Try as they might, none of the instigators of this scam has been able to show that CO2 causes ANY variation in temperature at all! And there is certainly no impact whatsoever on third-world countries.

So, what would this make-believe money be spent on, if it were ever to arrive?

Posted on 10/27/15 | 11:43 AM CET

Mike Palmore

Unfortunately the majority of funds (if any) will not go to help the poor; much of it will be siphoned off the help the rich politicians and corrupt public servants. I’ve spent time in Africa and can assure anyone the corruption in on a level unsurpassed. This is the African trick; hold out your hands the west can afford it. Just see what’s happening in South Africa, Zuma’s 20 billion Rand house, no one knows where the money came from. We are all being conned, when will politicians wake up to what’ really happening with the Climate debate because it’s pure fiction, alarmist, self interest, greed and hypocrisy.

Posted on 10/27/15 | 11:57 AM CET

Pete Austin

Rich countries have done us all a huge favour by enriching the atmosphere with CO2 – just look at how agricultural production has increased and e.g. the Sahel desert has got greener. If there is a theoretical danger of Global Warming, it will be entirely due to future emissions.

So there’s no case for rich countries paying and even an argument that they should *receive* money for services rendered.

Posted on 10/27/15 | 12:20 PM CET

Geyza

This is all about utterly destroying the western economies in order to cure a non-problem. The earth’s temperatures as measured by properly calibrated instrumentation on satellites, proves beyond scientific doubt, that the 90+ CMIP-5 Climate Models are wrong and not fit for any scientific purpose. Man-Made global warming simply is NOT happening in anywhere near the scale, or speed that those anti-science ecomentalists claimed it would be happening. Of course the climate is changing. It always has and always will. What is clearly not happening, is any massive change caused by human emissions of CO2.

So instead we have hype and lies built upon more hype and lies, and as the “scientific method” is crushed beneath the hubris of the pseudo-scientific rush to create a single global government, the future for all of us does indeed look bleak. Not because of changes in the climate, (which can easily be adapted to), but due to the arrogance, greed and human hating evil of an unelected elite seeking to impose a fascistic world government upon all of us.

Posted on 10/27/15 | 1:21 PM CET

charles

Here’s a link to the real world that I want the climate numpties to make when they’re thinking of squandering our money. Britain has a £1.5 trillion and rising national debt. The USA has a $20 trillion and rising national debts. How much do you want Greece to pay, numpties?

Posted on 10/27/15 | 3:23 PM CET

malcolm

a bit like religion,people should be free to believe it if they wish,but should pay themselves.

imagine if everybody was levied £400 to believe in Christianity?

Posted on 10/27/15 | 8:09 PM CET

About This Section

A year-long series examining the politics and issues driving today's energy and climate conversation in Europe.